Measurements and the Correlation of What We Hear

[Orb]

A complete set of measurements for the Ref5 and Anniversary can be found at Miller Audio Research - registering is quick and simple;
http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/index.html
January 2010 - Ref 5
April 2011 - Anniversary

Cheers
Orb

 

[RogerD]

I obviously can't tell you why it should be better, because, evidently ARC's communication discipline, perhaps their measurment discipline was about the magnitude of mo' bettah. I could get more meaningful measurements on a Yamaha AV receiver. But I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying measurements are meaningless because the high end has mostly abandoned them? Or they abandoned them because they were meaningless?

Personally I'd guess that all but a few very wacky high-end companies that are little more than glorified DIY shops are still measuring plenty. I don't know how they would develop repeatable improvements and duplicable products without them, frankly. I think what they have abandoned is the communication of those measurements, and have done so because it is convenient. Why convenient? Because 1) most of their target market doesn't want to be bothered with them and would much rather have, and believe, the magnitude of the mo' better hyperbole and 2) because good comprehensive measurements close far too much of the gap between a $10k amp and a $1k receiver.

Tim

Tim I'm just saying and it is conjecture on my part,what percentage of high end companies now use computer modeling for circuit design and have the ability to make measurements of interactive distortions to the 1x10-12 degree?

If spectral,ARC,ML,Boulder,ect.ect use these methodologies to quantify group distortion is measured THD obsolete. Seems to me that computer modeling may and could have revolutionised equipment design and what things are really important.

 

[mep]

But I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying measurements are meaningless because the high end has mostly abandoned them? Or they abandoned them because they were meaningless?

I’m not saying either. What I am saying is that manufacturers are not providing you with measurements; they are providing you with specifications that we all assume are based on measurements. And when you look at those specifications (even if they are based upon measurements that are representative of actual production units), how do you begin to correlate what you hear with the specifications you have? With the exception of digital measurements, audio is basically stuck in the 1960s with regards to the measurements that audio magazines take even though the available test gear today is light years beyond the test gear from the 1960s.

Personally I'd guess that all but a few very wacky high-end companies that are little more than glorified DIY shops are still measuring plenty. I don't know how they would develop repeatable improvements and duplicable products without them, frankly. I think what they have abandoned is the communication of those measurements, and have done so because it is convenient. Why convenient? Because 1) most of their target market doesn't want to be bothered with them and would much rather have, and believe, the hyperbole and 2) because good comprehensive measurements close far too much of the gap between a $10k amp and a $1k receiver.Tim

I’m convinced that all good audio companies take plenty of measurements; they just don’t share them with us for whatever reason. You have speculated as to why you think it’s so. I find it interesting that you think the measurements would show a $1K receiver would measure as well as a $10K amp. I also assume you really believe they would sound the same based on your comment. You have helped make my point to this thread even though your example is extreme. I for one don’t believe that a $1K receiver is going to come close to the sound quality of a $10K amp. I can’t speak for the subjectivists here, but I wonder how many of them would feel as you do and think they would sound the same. My point is that If I’m right and they don’t sound close but yet measure close, it just tells you how far away we are from meaningful measurements that actually correlate to what we hear.

And please, no more trotting out that warhorse argument that if we can hear it, we can measure it. I’m sure we can, it’s just that if anyone has pulled it off yet, they aren’t sharing. So until that day comes, quit repeating the argument like it’s already a fact. The only designer that I’m aware of that claims he knows how the ear works and designs his circuits accordingly is Lamm. I assume he has some interesting measurements to look at, but he is keeping those up his sleeve.

 

[fas42]

"FHT is the name for high-resolution,time domain circuit modeling"

I would have to ask the designer to be sure,but this was the only explanation given in the manual.

Unfortunately, Roger, FHT may have had its 15 minutes of fame: stands for Fast Hartley Transform, and the link www.fftw.org/burrus-notes.html is a somewhat heavy duty talk about such things.

In particular, it says (in 2002) "The fast Hartley transform has been proposed as a superior method for real data analysis but that has been shown not to be the case. A well-designed real-data FFT [69] is always as good as or better than a well-designed Hartley transform". FFT is what gives you the standard frequency spectrum dissection that Amir, for example, posts.

Frank

 

[fas42]

Tim I'm just saying and it is conjecture on my part,what percentage of high end companies now use computer modeling for circuit design and have the ability to make measurements of interactive distortions to the 1x10-12 degree?

Roger, I'm sorry but talk of 10 to -12 accuracy has no use for audio: that translates to 240dB precision, which I think even the most fanatical are not too fussed about. 120dB is about as good as anyone really needs, 10 to -6 , or 1 part in a million precision.

FRank

 

[Ron Party]

To a large degree, I agree with what you've just posted, Mark. There is an ocean of a difference between reading manufacturer specs and taking in-situ measurements. And since none of us listen in anechoic chambers, each one of us has to factor in the deeply profound impact our listening environment has on the sound. Then there is the problem of defining that pesky term, i.e., that it sounds *better*. Better in an objective sense (instead of a personal preference) probably requires a goalpost or set of standards, and lord knows there is no consensus there.

As a side note, I think there are a few others besides Vlad Lamm who are in tune with the inner workings of the ear: Earl Geddes, Ken Stevens, and of course the folks at Harman to name just a few.

 

[fas42]

And please, no more trotting out that warhorse argument that if we can hear it, we can measure it. I’m sure we can, it’s just that if anyone has pulled it off yet, they aren’t sharing. So until that day comes, quit repeating the argument like it’s already a fact. The only designer that I’m aware of that claims he knows how the ear works and designs his circuits accordingly is Lamm. I assume he has some interesting measurements to look at, but he is keeping those up his sleeve.

To put it bluntly, some of the things that are extremely important to the perceived quality will be somewhat hard to measure because they are time variant. That is, the measurement figure produced will vary depending on WHEN you take it. Shock, horror for audio engineers, they may have to hang around for some hours, taking readings of the same thing every 15 minutes to pick up what's going on.

Every person who's fussy about sound quality knows this is the case, the time of the day, how long it's been switched on, how hard it's been driven all make a difference, and those poor chaps in lab coats might just have to adopt the same strategy when doing precise, meaningful measurements ...

Frank

 

[microstrip]

(...) . The point to this was that the REF-40 is way more expensive than the REF-5 and as much better as the REF-5 was supposed to sound in comparison to the REF-3, I'm sure there is another magnitude of mo' better with the REF-40 over the REF-5. And I guess it's not entirely true that the REF-40 is still a current model because it was a limtied edition run and they are sold out. The argument remains the same though. Look at the specs and tell me why the REF-40 should sound better outside of the one obvious distortion spec even though ARC doesn't even tell you what type of distortion they measured.

As I owned all these preamplifiers and still own the REF40, I am very strongly biased and I will not debate sound quality. But of one think I am sure: if I was looking for comments on sound quality to correlate with measurements I would not look for them in marketing literature.

Another think that is also sure : the REF40 is not a magical recipe for excellent sound reproduction - you must assemble a synergistic system with it to exploit its full potential.

 

[RogerD]

Unfortunately, Roger, FHT may have had its 15 minutes of fame: stands for Fast Hartley Transform, and the link www.fftw.org/burrus-notes.html is a somewhat heavy duty talk about such things.

In particular, it says (in 2002) "The fast Hartley transform has been proposed as a superior method for real data analysis but that has been shown not to be the case. A well-designed real-data FFT [69] is always as good as or better than a well-designed Hartley transform". FFT is what gives you the standard frequency spectrum dissection that Amir, for example, posts.

Frank

Roger, I'm sorry but talk of 10 to -12 accuracy has no use for audio: that translates to 240dB precision, which I think even the most fanatical are not too fussed about. 120dB is about as good as anyone really needs, 10 to -6 , or 1 part in a million precision.

FRank

Thanks Frank for the insight. I would disagree with your last statement about that level of precision is not useful, that to me is not logical.

I said about 10 pages back I could not answer Marks question as to what measurements quantify the what and why of what we hear specifically. The precision of reproduced sound has many variables but if there exists today computer software technology that enables the designer to pinpoint up to and past -200 db precision and this sound equipment is still identifiable upon listening as unique,all this talking is just mental masturbation. It might feel good at first but at some point the fun runs out.

 

[fas42]

Thanks Frank for the insight. I would disagree with your last statement about that level of precision is not useful, that to me is not logical.

I said about 10 pages back I could not answer Marks question as to what measurements quantify the what and why of what we hear specifically. The precision of reproduced sound has many variables but if there exists today computer software technology that enables the designer to pinpoint up to and past -200 db precision and this sound equipment is still identifiable upon listening as unique,all this talking is just mental masturbation. It might feel good at first but at some point the fun runs out.

You may be able to work something out theoretically to that level of precision, but the real world will completely undo any efforts to achieve or measure with that accuracy. If you're trying to get something that precise and someone starts to walk into the the room 20 feet away it will completely ruin the attempt. You're talking about being accurate to 1 part in a million, million, your ears give up at 1 part in a million, your eyes at 1 part in a thousand.

So there's no point in chasing something that is completely unattainable and won't be relevant ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I find it interesting that you think the measurements would show a $1K receiver would measure as well as a $10K amp.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Mark, but that's not what I said. I said that I thought good, comprehensive measurements close too much of the gap between those extremes for high-end manufacturers to be comfortable with it. It's far better for them to avoid measurements, and keep their customers focused on the subjective, that can't be measured, because from an objective point of view, the gap between very good "midfi" and high end has grown very small. It's very bad marketing to shine a light on that.

I also assume you really believe they would sound the same based on your comment.

That's because you didn't pay attention to what you were reading, or took from it what you already believed (expectation bias) instead of what was actually being said. I've said here, many times, that I don't believe all electronics sound the same. What I do believe, is that most of them sound much more alike than audiophiles imagine they do, but that is a very different statement.

And please, no more trotting out that warhorse argument that if we can hear it, we can measure it. I’m sure we can, it’s just that if anyone has pulled it off yet, they aren’t sharing.

Well, there's a catch 22 there as well, my friend. We can't be sure if we can measure what can be heard until we're sure someone has actually heard what has been reported. And that -- well-controlled, independent verification of what is reportedly heard? It's probably more rare than comprehensive measurements. So I guess we'll both have to stop trotting out our old arguments. What on earth are we going to discuss? My God, man...we might have to talk about music!

You like Wilco?

Tim

 

[fas42]

... because from an objective point of view, the gap between very good "midfi" and high end has grown very small. It's very bad marketing to shine a light on that.

As an interesting side note, recently bought a nothing boom box by Sharp, and it's quite remarkable how well it does some things, given half a chance. And that's before any real fiddling ...

Frank

 

[Ron Party]

My God, man...we might have to talk about music!

Hey! Bones is a member of WBF. Cool.

 

[Gregadd]

Confronted by so many problems what are we left with?.

An infinite measuring approach?
A measure as best you can and then use trial and error.
A marketing approach.That is even if you have measurements only reveal the ones that are advantageous to your sales
And finally no matter what you have done release the product to an unknown or unpredictable environment and end user.

A daunting task to say the least.

 

[MylesBAstor]

My God, man...we might have to talk about music!

You like Wilco?

Tim

So, nothing is stopping you. Contributing this thread and talking about music aren't mutually exclusive. I know that this thread hasn't stopped me, nor others, from talking about music in the other sections.

 

[microstrip]

Not to put too fine a point on it, Mark, but that's not what I said. I said that I thought good, comprehensive measurements close too much of the gap between those extremes for high-end manufacturers to be comfortable with it. It's far better for them to avoid measurements, and keep their customers focused on the subjective, that can't be measured, because from an objective point of view, the gap between very good "midfi" and high end has grown very small. It's very bad marketing to shine a light on that.

You seem to forget the objective of an audio system is to reproduce music, that is per se is subjective. Why should manufacturers of the better devices focus on a set of parameters that do not correlate with their excellence, and just seem to define the generally acceptable threshold?

That's because you didn't pay attention to what you were reading, or took from it what you already believed (expectation bias) instead of what was actually being said. I've said here, many times, that I don't believe all electronics sound the same. What I do believe, is that most of them sound much more alike than audiophiles imagine they do, but that is a very different statement.

Well, you are imagining about what audiophiles imagine, unless you have access to their systems …
And , again IMHO, “most of them sounding more alike” is a too ambiguous statement to be used clarify your position.

Well, there's a catch 22 there as well, my friend. We can't be sure if we can measure what can be heard until we're sure someone has actually heard what has been reported. And that -- well-controlled, independent verification of what is reportedly heard? It's probably more rare than comprehensive measurements. So I guess we'll both have to stop trotting out our old arguments. What on earth are we going to discuss? My God, man...we might have to talk about music!
You like Wilco?
Tim

We are not making science with these debates. Anyone has it personnel experience and then uses it to draw its own conclusions according to what he reads. Your “well-controlled, independent verification of what is reportedly heard “ is surely out of scope in amateur debates, but happily human knowledge is not only based in certified proofs.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So, nothing is stopping you. Contributing this thread and talking about music aren't mutually exclusive. I know that this thread hasn't stopped me, nor others, from talking about music in the other sections.

Here, Myles. Have another:

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You seem to forget the objective of an audio system is to reproduce music, that is per se is subjective.

I don't think I have...

Why should manufacturers of the better devices focus on a set of parameters that do not correlate with their excellence, and just seem to define the generally acceptable threshold?

They shouldn't. They should raise the bar, measure more parameters, publish more specifications and provide better evidence of their excellence. Some do.

Well, you are imagining about what audiophiles imagine, unless you have access to their systems …
And , again IMHO, “most of them sounding more alike” is a too ambiguous statement to be used clarify your position.

Perhaps I overtated; this is not a position, it is an observation that audiophiles have a tendency toward exaggeration born of enthusiasm. Often what they hear is impossible, so I do not need any testing or direct experience to know they are imagining it. Most of the time, I expect it is just a penchant for drama an hyperbole. This much I know from reading and experience -- on many occasions the obvious differences reported in isolation became difficult, if possible, to discern in direct comparison, blind or otherwise.

We are not making science with these debates. Anyone has it personnel experience and then uses it to draw its own conclusions according to what he reads. Your “well-controlled, independent verification of what is reportedly heard “ is surely out of scope in amateur debates, but happily human knowledge is not only based in certified proofs.

It is a bit much to expect from such a debate, but Mark was saying that all references like "if it can be heard it can be measured" should be banned from the dialogue, because so much has not been measured. I was merely pointing that the "hearing" hasn't been verified either. So if we can only talk about what has been verified we will be left with little to discuss.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

"...if it can be heard it can be measured." Nothing wrong with that per se. More often than not those who"heard it" can't measure it. Those who can (possessing the skills and the equipment) "measure" it can't hear it or measure it.

 

[DonH50]

Which, without further work on both sides, does not invalidate (or validate) either position...